Peter bowers morphology define
•
How do we use Structured Word Inquiry?
What is Structured Word Inquiry? It’s a research-based method to understand a word’s spelling, meaning, pronunciation. The term, “structured word inquiry,” comes from a 2010 study by Dr. Peter Bowers and Dr. John Kirby to determine how fourth and fifth graders benefit from morphology-based vocabulary instruction.
What’s morphology? Dr. Kelli Sandman-Hurley of the Dyslexia Training Institute explains, “Morphology is the study of the internal structure of a word, which is made up of morphemes. A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in a word.” (Dyslexia & Spelling, 2019)
Okay, so what does that look like? Read on and don’t miss the structured word inquiry resources listed at the end.
At the start of each tutoring möte, I ask my student if they have a word they’d like to look at before we do anything else. Maybe it’s a word they read in one of their school subje
•
Morphology Instruction: A Secondary Meta-Analysis
Over the past decade, we have seen a rise in evidence-based literacy instruction, driven by the dyslexia advocacy community and focused on phonics instruction. It might be fair to say that this movement in many ways characterizes themselves as outsiders, or rebels, revolting against mainstream Whole Language instruction, for the welfare of dyslexic children. However, recently, inom have noticed a new growing sect, within this movement, of parents and teachers who reject both traditional Whole Language Instruction and Phonics instruction, who instead believe that morphology instruction coupled with phonological instruction is the best way to help struggling readers learn how to read.
I wanted to review the topic of morphological instruction and to address the question of whether or not morphological instruction (MI) is evidence-based. I recently interviewed Dr. Peter Bowers on the topic and I believed that he gave an
•
Open Access
Peer-reviewed
- Melvin M. R. Ng,
- Peter N. Bowers,
- Jeffrey S. Bowers
- Melvin M. R. Ng,
- Peter N. Bowers,
- Jeffrey S. Bowers
x
Abstract
There is growing interest in the role that morphological knowledge plays in literacy acquisition, but there is no research directly comparing the efficacy of different forms of morphological instruction. Here we compare two methods of teaching English morphology in the context of a memory experiment when words were organized by affix during study (e.g., a list of words was presented that all share an affix, such as <doing>, <going>, <talking>, <walking>, etc.) or by base during study (e.g., a list of words was presented that all share a base, such as <doing>, <done>, <redo>, <undo>). We show that memory for morphologically complex words is better in both conditions compared to a control condition that does not highlight the morphological composition